Err, companies generally don't apply budget cuts in such arbitrary and haphazard fashions. Those that do tend not to survive very long. Also note that the contracting workforce doesn't have, and never has had, the same protections afforded government workers.

I've worked for plenty of companies that can and do *exactly* this. Cisco, for example has done the "cut the bottom 5% of employees". That seems like eliminating waste, but is actually a very haphazard and subjective methodology.

As for the bolded portion, of course they don't, which is exactly why you USE contractors in the first place.

Quote:

Depending on who you read (and believe), sequestration will push the economy into a contraction, and possibly even a recession. So no, it's not necessarily "as good as time as any".

It may or may not, but that's why I used the bandaid metaphor. I'd rather see it happen now, at the cost of DOD/military, and the re-expanding into less wasteful pursuits...things like infrastructure, including smart grid development.

Speaking as a government contractor, I think a lot of the fear is exxagerated. DoD is very, very nervous about the 40% sequester due on March 1. If the sequester goes through, it will be a disaster. If they don't go through, then DoD will make some cuts anyways, but it won't be the big hatchet job that everyone thinks it will be.

I'm an optimist, and I think .gov will find a deal to avoid the sequester. Contractors and gov employees will lose their jobs, but we won't see massive numbers of layoffs.

The only problem I see with the sequester on the defense side is that the cuts will be across the board for the most part which means that it will end up being a lot of staff cuts, rather than what is arguably far more needed which is eliminating wasteful programs and making the valuable ones operate better.

On the non defense side, they should give all the savings to the IRS for tax enforcement and the IRS will bring in 5 times that in additional collections, especially if Congress and POTUS let them crack down on some of the truly bizarre loopholes and the billions in off-shore tax evasion.

The vast majority of the US's "defense" budget is make-work. While it may appear to boost the economy, and cutting it may hurt the economy in the short run, in the long run the work force will shift to more productive markets and the impact will be benefitial overall.

On the non defense side, they should give all the savings to the IRS for tax enforcement and the IRS will bring in 5 times that in additional collections, especially if Congress and POTUS let them crack down on some of the truly bizarre loopholes and the billions in off-shore tax evasion avoidance.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal, so I don't really see what giving more money to the IRS for enforcement purposes will do.

On the non defense side, they should give all the savings to the IRS for tax enforcement and the IRS will bring in 5 times that in additional collections, especially if Congress and POTUS let them crack down on some of the truly bizarre loopholes and the billions in off-shore tax evasion avoidance.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal, so I don't really see what giving more money to the IRS for enforcement purposes will do.

The the IRS's own words, it has been forced to streamline it's enforcement efforts, for example the 2011 and 2009 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure programs, rather than actual enforcement of violations. They made $3 billion for those efforts, but gave up penalties and back taxes.

A very common theme in the BR/SB has been that the military/DOD is simply too large, too expensive, and is a de-facto jobs program. A significant portion of Arsians have supported reducing spending in this area, and this is a natural consequence of that. It seems our .gov may finally be listening...so how is this indiscriminate?

There isn't much guidance from the government besides "If things don't work out, cut <X>% from your budget. You pick which programs and how much".

Isn't that how it should be?

I have a hard time seeing why Congress should micromanage what programs to cut. It seems to me individual agencies and departments would be much better suited to decide what they can cut with the least amount of negative impact.

Err, companies generally don't apply budget cuts in such arbitrary and haphazard fashions. Those that do tend not to survive very long. Also note that the contracting workforce doesn't have, and never has had, the same protections afforded government workers.

I've worked for plenty of companies that can and do *exactly* this. Cisco, for example has done the "cut the bottom 5% of employees".

That is perhaps arbitrary, but not haphazard, if properly managed. It's nothing like what will result here.

Quote:

I'd rather see it happen now, at the cost of DOD/military, and the re-expanding into less wasteful pursuits...things like infrastructure, including smart grid development.

Again, that is not the intent nor the outcome of the legislation. The money cut from defense isn't going to be spent on other things, it's going to be spent on nothing at all. And again, if you want money spent on "less wasteful pursuits", then this approach is going to hurt those pursuits more than it will hurt the DoD, because the DoD was a bigger portion of the budget to begin with. More importantly, saving money on defense now isn't necessary in the least for the government to spend money on those other things later, so any reasoning along those lines are specious.

There isn't much guidance from the government besides "If things don't work out, cut <X>% from your budget. You pick which programs and how much".

Isn't that how it should be?

I have a hard time seeing why Congress should micromanage what programs to cut.

Perhaps ideally, but it's not the way things work. Large programs require Congressional approval to even exist in the first place, likewise, they require Congressional approval to kill. Small programs don't receive such oversight, but that doesn't mean the government can just cancel them at will, though it depends on the particulars of the program. As a result, it's probable you'll see lots of changes to staff instead of massive program cutting and restructuring, as Facekhan described.

Quote:

It seems to me individual agencies and departments would be much better suited to decide what they can cut with the least amount of negative impact.

Congress doesn't make their decisions in a vacuum, though that are somewhat infamous for ignoring the advice given to them.

The sequestration isn't a decision. It's a punt. They're so dysfunctionally partisan that there is little hope for a reasoned plan about nearly anything they set out to do under ordinary circumstances.

Since they've set themselves up with this now extraordinary circumstance, perhaps they'll realize that they have to back off a bit from their party lines and actually do something.

One other issue that will be a problem with all agencies trying to cut programs rather than just reduce staff and spending generally is that their contracts with the government contracting establishment usually have penalty clauses for cancellation. If DOD cancels a weapon project, especially late in development or in the early stages of unit production, then they have wasted a ton of money developing a weapon system they will not even end up having.

Still I think deep down most of the top guys at the DOD are competent enough to know the systems they really need (new aircraft carriers that can launch drones) and not the stuff that Congress has shoved down their throats (ballistic missile defense).

On the non defense side, they should give all the savings to the IRS for tax enforcement and the IRS will bring in 5 times that in additional collections, especially if Congress and POTUS let them crack down on some of the truly bizarre loopholes and the billions in off-shore tax evasion avoidance.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal, so I don't really see what giving more money to the IRS for enforcement purposes will do.

Tax avoidance strategies aren't pre-cleared by the IRS. Tax lawyers devise the schemes and hope that they will pass muster. With little actual enforcement by the IRS, the schemes utilize more and more outrageous readings of the law. Enforcement dollars therefore not only bring in dollars in penalties and interest for invalidated schemes, but generate lots more money in deterrence.

Err, companies generally don't apply budget cuts in such arbitrary and haphazard fashions. Those that do tend not to survive very long. Also note that the contracting workforce doesn't have, and never has had, the same protections afforded government workers.

I've worked for plenty of companies that can and do *exactly* this. Cisco, for example has done the "cut the bottom 5% of employees".

That is perhaps arbitrary, but not haphazard, if properly managed. It's nothing like what will result here.

Well, perhaps your crystal ball is clearer than mine, but I don't see any major difference.

Quote:

I'd rather see it happen now, at the cost of DOD/military, and the re-expanding into less wasteful pursuits...things like infrastructure, including smart grid development. ]Again, that is not the intent nor the outcome of the legislation. The money cut from defense isn't going to be spent on other things, it's going to be spent on nothing at all. And again, if you want money spent on "less wasteful pursuits", then this approach is going to hurt those pursuits more than it will hurt the DoD, because the DoD was a bigger portion of the budget to begin with. More importantly, saving money on defense now isn't necessary in the least for the government to spend money on those other things later, so any reasoning along those lines are specious.

I'm not suggesting that the funds that would have been used will be re-allocated, and I should have been more clear. What I'm suggesting is that, in the absence of DoD spending cuts, there is no money to allocate to other efforts. The way I see it, any short-term retraction in spending will be offset by *future* increases in spending, and if I were to earmark those funds, they would go toward infrastructure, smart grid in particular.

I'd rather see it happen now, at the cost of DOD/military, and the re-expanding into less wasteful pursuits...things like infrastructure, including smart grid development.

Again, that is not the intent nor the outcome of the legislation. The money cut from defense isn't going to be spent on other things, it's going to be spent on nothing at all. And again, if you want money spent on "less wasteful pursuits", then this approach is going to hurt those pursuits more than it will hurt the DoD, because the DoD was a bigger portion of the budget to begin with. More importantly, saving money on defense now isn't necessary in the least for the government to spend money on those other things later, so any reasoning along those lines are specious.

What I'm suggesting is that, in the absence of DoD spending cuts, there is no money to allocate to other efforts.

Except that's not how it works. Congress is always free to raise taxes or deficit spend on any effort they choose. There's zero onus on Congress to cut funding in one place in order to increase funding in another place. It would be rather unusual for them to act in such a fashion, in fact. Budget items typically live and die on their own merits.

Quote:

The way I see it, any short-term retraction in spending will be offset by *future* increases in spending,

Perhaps if we had a budget surplus, you could possibly begin to argue along this line of reasoning, that we're actually saving money today that we plan to spend later. But even then, I'd have a hard time with that since Congress only budgets on a yearly basis (when they manage to do so at all!) and rarely takes 5 and 10-year projections into serious consideration. They're not thinking ahead in the fashion you seem to believe.

In the few cases were we actually intend to save money for the future, Congress typically erects a trust fund or another device to hold the money, offset from the general budget, such as Social Security or the Highway Trust. Whether Congress lets that money alone and/or continues to fund the trust properly is a different story altogether.

The plainly stated intent of the legislation is deficit reduction. There's nothing about the legislation that deals with future budget growth (projected or not) or future changes in funding priorties. However, it does impact funding priorties in defense's favor because the cut is a 50/50 split between defense and non-defense discretionary spending, which is inequitable! Non-defense discretionary spending is a smaller piece of the pie, so you're taking a larger % cut in that category. So if the intent were to even equalize or change priority, the defense cuts would be much larger, with smaller non-defense cuts. Nor would the cuts be uniform in nature.

Deficit reduction means less money spent on debt interest, which means more money for other things (either for the gov't or public to spend). It also opens the door to more defit spending elsewhere or lower taxes. Paying people to dig and fill holes does not benefit the economy in the long run.

Except that's not how it works. Congress is always free to raise taxes or deficit spend on any effort they choose. There's zero onus on Congress to cut funding in one place in order to increase funding in another place. It would be rather unusual for them to act in such a fashion, in fact. Budget items typically live and die on their own merits.

I understand how it works, and I probanbly should have known you'd take issue with my phrasing. Yes, they can fund whatever they wish, technically. What they can't do, however, is simply increase spending to accomodate every program, while maintaining taxpayer credibility.

There is a very real issue right now with allocation of funds, and the viewpoint of the citizenry. When I refer to this type of capital outlay, it isn't just actual funding...it's political capital.

Deficit reduction means less money spent on debt interest, which means more money for other things (either for the gov't or public to spend). It also opens the door to more defit spending elsewhere or lower taxes. Paying people to dig and fill holes does not benefit the economy in the long run.

Define "long run". Paying people to do things that could be done by machine is better than leaving them unemployed and paying them benefits, and doing the work by contracting a private firm that will do it efficiently. (That's the realistic modern equivalent of digging and filling holes.)

Huge numbers of people that've been disenfranchised by the software revolution are likely to be absurdly un- or under-employed until retirement.

Define "long run". Paying people to do things that could be done by machine is better than leaving them unemployed and paying them benefits, and doing the work by contracting a private firm that will do it efficiently. (That's the realistic modern equivalent of digging and filling holes.)

Do what efficiently? How do you inefficiently dig and refill holes? The whole idea of make-work is to be inefficient.

Define "long run". Paying people to do things that could be done by machine is better than leaving them unemployed and paying them benefits, and doing the work by contracting a private firm that will do it efficiently. (That's the realistic modern equivalent of digging and filling holes.)

Huge numbers of people that've been disenfranchised by the software revolution are likely to be absurdly un- or under-employed until retirement.

By "long run" I mean at least enough time for the labor market to adjust to the different job market. It's too bad that the "defense bubble" grew so much and that so many people rely on it, but keeping that bubble inflated has a greater long term cost.

understand how it works, and I probanbly should have known you'd take issue with my phrasing. Yes, they can fund whatever they wish, technically. What they can't do, however, is simply increase spending to accomodate every program, while maintaining taxpayer credibility.

Sure, there is a breaking point somewhere out there. Regardless, even if I accept the cuts as step 1 on the road to get what you want, there's zero evidence of step 2, which is to change the funding allocations in the fashion that you personally desire. Nevermind the fact that step 1, in this case, works against your desired allocations.

That said, the process is so far disconnected from that view I don't see any value in discussing things in those terms.

Quote:

There is a very real issue right now with allocation of funds, and the viewpoint of the citizenry. When I refer to this type of capital outlay, it isn't just actual funding...it's political capital.

I think your assessment of the situation is charitable. There's not a lot of evidence to suggest that budget actions matter beyond a politican's ability to bring home the bacon, a few elections in the recent past aside.

Certainly, if the issue were "very real" then we'd be having discussions about balanced budget legislation and/or amendments on a daily, national basis. Hell, if it were a very real issue then we'd have a budget in the first place. For all the public complaining, correlating that to voter action is a lot harder than you might think.

By "long run" I mean at least enough time for the labor market to adjust to the different job market.

Err, part of the reason unemployment took so long to fall since 2008 and has fallen so slowly is because the labor market has not adjusted very well at all. "Long run" is perhaps great if you're a government planner, until the people who are unemployeed 1, 5, 10 years rise up and burn you at the stake.

Yes, it does suck if you're subject to it. But not to be too harsh, welcome to how the rest of us have been working for pretty much ever. For decades now, .gov jobs have been considered the "safe haven" of job security. In the private sector, that hasn't been the case since the 50's (and really not even then).

And that "safe haven" comes at a price to the employee in the form of lower compensation (yes, even considering the usual additional leave time and benefits.)

Being "safe" in a job lets .gov hire reasonably competent people for less than the private sector would have to pay for the same people.

It isn't just the contractor and DoD employee side that will be hurt. Operations will be, too. Pilots won't get the flight time they need to stay current, ships will have deployments extended or delayed, needed maintenance will be delayed or deferred, the list goes on and on. About the only thing that won't be affected is pay and allowances.My current deployment isn't going to be extended (or so we've been told), but trust me, we are all very nervous out here in the Northern Arabian Sea.

Something like 11% of our private economy is all thanks to defense spending. Cutting 10% is an impact, but I agree it's not a major one at the high level. In the weeds, though, it's an awful lot of people out of work, an awful lot of contracts cut, an awful lot of projects put on hold, etc.

That 10% is coming out of whatever they can pull it from. There is an expectation of a 78% cut in training budgets. that means unless you are getting deployed tomorrow you won't get training. this includes multinational/joint training which leaves a big communication gap with our partners from other countries.

The cuts will also dramatically effect maintenance. If the cuts go through it is expected to take up to 5 years to get all of the MRAPS out of Afghanistan and back home and then get them cleaned up. There are thousands of those at hundreds of thousands of dollars per truck. They can't afford to ship them out of Afghanistan. Think about that for a minute. Thousands of heavily armored trucks left in a country that is still on the edge of falling back to the Taliban. Lets not even talk about the ordinance that will be left behind.

The cuts will also force a lot of cuts to the government employee side. Those would be the folks across the board. If that happens expect government response times to drop dramatically. Its hard to get systems up to date and people to answer phone calls when there is no one left in the office to do it and no money to automate it.

I am fully behind a reduction in government spending and a reduction in manpower, but I want to see it in a phased approach and only once more systems have been modernized and automated to allow for these things to happen without critical resources being affected. The government is not known for being nimble and a wholesale reduction is going to causes even more complaints from the public.

you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but you still want to keep the majority serviced appropriately.

I am fully behind a reduction in government spending and a reduction in manpower, but I want to see it in a phased approach and only once more systems have been modernized and automated to allow for these things to happen without critical resources being affected. The government is not known for being nimble and a wholesale reduction is going to causes even more complaints from the public.

So the problem here is that the military believed it would never actually happen to them (and they may still be right). Otherwise, two years ago they would have started preparing for a world of much more constrained budget, and they could have weaned themselves down (for example, moving substantially more and more money to R&D, and reducing the onoing operational cost). Then, when the ax fell, they would have been ready.

So the problem here is that the military believed it would never actually happen to them (and they may still be right). Otherwise, two years ago they would have started preparing for a world of much more constrained budget, and they could have weaned themselves down (for example, moving substantially more and more money to R&D, and reducing the onoing operational cost).

Even if the DoD had the authority to move budget funding around in such a fashion, you can't freely trade operations dollars for R&D. Even if you could do that, it'd be a dumb idea. There are much better things to cut.

Quote:

Then, when the ax fell, they would have been ready.

No, because the cuts mandate 10% from everything that's not exempt. They have minimal control over these cuts.

I am fully behind a reduction in government spending and a reduction in manpower, but I want to see it in a phased approach and only once more systems have been modernized and automated to allow for these things to happen without critical resources being affected. The government is not known for being nimble and a wholesale reduction is going to causes even more complaints from the public.

So the problem here is that the military believed it would never actually happen to them (and they may still be right). Otherwise, two years ago they would have started preparing for a world of much more constrained budget, and they could have weaned themselves down (for example, moving substantially more and more money to R&D, and reducing the onoing operational cost). Then, when the ax fell, they would have been ready.

Actually Gates told all contract companies 2 years ago to prepare for this. He told them that the DOD was no longer going to finance their R&D and that they needed to do their own R&D investing and provide the DOD with tangible solutions for funding. All new programs since then have been doing exactly that. From the military side of things Gates also ordered a lot of contracts to be insourced and to start using economies of scale and forcing the .mil to go to a shared services IT platform which they have been doing. As I'm sure you know there is no such thing as change for free. Transition costs money in the short term. Also as I'm sure you know, the .mil must budget out in 2 year chunks for funding. This means things that were already budgeted amd earmarked are extremely difficult to stop or change.